Facing Down The Threat Of Absentee Voting

But traditionally, to get an absentee ballot you had to give a specific reason that you would be unable to make it to your regular polling place on election day. But in the last couple of decades a growing number of states are dropping these restrictions, allowing anyone to vote by mail without giving a reason. ~Tim Lee

As a regular absentee voter, I don’t see the problem with ending these restrictions. More to the point, the requirement to give a specific reason for being absent wouldn’t change anything. It would simply create one more hoop for absentee voters to jump through, and there would be no way to verify if that reason is valid or not. If I had been required to give a specific reason why I couldn’t be at my polling place when filling out my absentee ballot application in years past, I would have had to give the same reason for each of the last four general elections: I was out of state on election day because I was a student. That’s true, but there would have been no effort to verify that.

This year is a bit different in that I just moved back to Illinois, but I did not find the time in the last month and a half to register here before the deadline. Once again, I applied for an absentee ballot in New Mexico, where I am registered. Were absentee voting rules more restrictive, or were absentee voting not permitted, I probably would not be able to vote in this year’s election. Given the laughable choices available, that wouldn’t be so terrible as far as I’m concerned, but that isn’t the point. Absentee voting is essential to making it much easier for people to move around the country without being cut off from the electoral process, and it is also very important for enfranchising students in their home states. I suppose students can and do register wherever they happen to be, but that isn’t something that they should have to do, and fortunately they don’t.

I don’t know which party is more adversely affected by restrictions on absentee voting. Based on my understanding of absentee returns in Albuquerque, I believe Republican and right-leaning voters would be disadvantaged if absentee voting were more difficult, but that would probably vary by district and state. Regardless, keeping people who vote absentee out of the process or making it more difficult for them to participate in the political process seems far worse than the unlikely scenarios Lee has proposed. Come to think of it, if there are husbands who insist on pressuring their wives to vote the same way, they are going to exert that pressure whether or not there is a secret ballot. If employers are going to pressure their employees to vote a certain way, those pressures are probably going to be unspoken and subtle, and they wouldn’t be avoided by restricting or ending absentee voting.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 13 comments

13 Responses to Facing Down The Threat Of Absentee Voting

Has there every been ANY evidence of vote fraud on ANYTHING close the level that would justify the GOP’s paranoia about the issue? Yes, you can find individual instances of hanky panky, but is there ANY actual evidence that vote fraud has played any significant role in electoral outcomes over the last 30 years?

The reasons I’ve heard given by people who had not previously been allowed to do so but are now opting to vote absentee are mainly:

1. They can’t afford or are not allowed to miss time from work to vote.
2. They have a long commute to work and will not be in their home neighborhood during voting hours.
3. Not needing to get a babysitter to be free to go vote.
4. The knowledge that the weather may well be lousy.
5. Strictly convenience and time savings.

So who would be effected by returning to more restrictive rules? Likely younger and poorer (i.e. Democratic-leaning) people for whom voting at the precinct often means some kind of actual sacrifice.

To forestwalker: That sounds right to me. The Albuquerque example may be skewed towards the GOP because of the large number of military absentee ballots that come in from personnel attached to Kirtland.

forestwalker: I think you nailed it – more people do vote and those voters tend to vote Democratic. Here in Oregon both parties opposed vote by mail because it complicated campaigning. Oregonians will get their ballots tomorrow or Monday which means election day lasts three weeks. About 25% of those who vote do so in the first few days but a majority still wait until the last minute – why should voting be different than nearly everything else? I will vote right away because campaigns can find out who has voted already and the phone calls will stop.
And most don’t actually “mail” their ballots – there are drop off locations at librarys, city halls, county offices, etc.

I read Lee’s objections and found this to be absurd:
“Rather, my point was about the effect of vote-by-mail schemes on voter secrecy. Imagine if an employer, who everyone knew to be a Republican, required his employees to request absentee ballots and show them to him before they were submitted. Think of an abusive husband who insists that he and his wife fill out their ballots together. Or imagine a political operative going around a low-income neighborhood paying people $50 if they let him fill out their ballots for them. This kind of corruption is very hard for voting officials to detect. And more insidious, voters themselves may not even realize that it’s unethical.”
All of these are crimes and the political operative and the employers would be caught a majority of the time.

Daniel is as much as admitting to committing fraud by voting in a state where he is no longer a resident and should have no right to vote. I wonder how many people in Oregon are voting in districts where they no longer live or how many people who spend more than 1/2 of the year outside the state are voting in local elections.

However, since Oregon is a one party state with virtually no competitive elections, is there really a point to having elections in the first place?

I don’t know why I’m bothering, but here goes. It’s hardly fraud that I’m voting in N.M. this year. If it is, then voter fraud doesn’t mean anything. I have voted there in every election for the last decade, and I have been away at college and grad school for eight of those years. That’s as “fraudulent” as Americans working in Europe voting in American elections. If I’m a taxpaying resident of a state, it shouldn’t matter to the state where I happen to be on election day. Presumably, typical absentee voters in Oregon are Oregonian taxpayers.

Since you are no longer a resident of New Mexico, you should no longer be eligible to vote in New Mexico. You are now a resident of Chicago and thus should vote in the place that you are resident.

Those Americans in Europe or military in Afghanistan vote in the place that is listed as their permanent residence. The military in Iraq cannot decide to vote in Chicago this year but in New York next year. Their voting is tied to tax paying and residence.

the problem is voter fraud is that many people end up voting in two place such as New York and Florida for the snow birds http://www.slate.com/id/2108807/ or college students in DC who would be considered residents of other states.

Of course, since the left gets most of the benefits of the voter fraud they refuse to investigate it or even consider it.

The left is against having people produce picture ID when voting (see the lawsuit in Georgia). The left likes motor voter bills so that illegal aliens can vote. The left is against purging voter rolls of people who are no longer residents.

The left feels that it benefits if there is no restrictions on voting and people can vote multiple times (see Chicago).

It must be a great country where people can substitute insults for making real arguments or proposals.

I’m not sure if you know this, but “the left” isn’t all-powerful. There are plenty of district, county and attorneys general who are Republicans, even conservative ones. I challenge you to find one conviction for voter fraud anywhere in the country since 2000.

I live in Minnesota. We have one of the most “liberal” voting rights regimes in the country. We actually allow people to register without an ID on the day of the election at the polls. (with a current address bill and a registered voter from that precinct vouching for you) Somehow, we don’t have any voter fraud. Chicago, I don’t know about, can you give me a link to evidence of people voting multiple times?